SHYAM KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal issue which has been raised in this petition preferred under section 38 of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986. (here -in -after referred to as the Act), is whether the Juvenile Court is competent to grant bail when an offence is such regarding which bail could only granted only by this Court or the Court of Sessions. The precise argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent Suraj Singh Tomar has committed an offence u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, this case is covered by section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, a juvenile court which is presided over by a judicial Officer, who is not Sessions Judge, was not competent to grant bail.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that an enquiry as to whether respondent no. 2 is a juvenile for the purpose of the Act of 1986 is pending determination before the Juvenile Court. The question arises whether the Juvenile Court is competent to consider an application for the grant of bail and pass orders releasing on bail a person claiming to be a juvenile and when the question regarding the status of person i.e. whether he is juvenile or not is under consideration.

(3.) A bare reading of the above provision indicates that if a person who "appearently appear to be juvenile" and is arrested or detailed with regard to an offence punishable under the law, then his case for bail can be considered by the Juvenile Court. It be seen that the word used in section 18 (3) is "apparently a juvenile", this indicates that all that the Court has to see is that a prima -fice a reasonable conclusion can be drawn with regard to the age of a person. There is no limitation vis -a -viz nature of offence. In this case, the enquiry is pending. The question as to whether the respondent no. 2 is a juvenile or not is yet to be decided. It was only when the petitioner appeared as a juvenile, the question regarding grant of bail was considered.